To the Editors of The Crimson:

After reading the 12 April letter entitled, "The Crimson Misrepresented the Harvard Foundation," submitted by S. Allen Counter and Natosha O. Reid '93, we were both relieved and satisfied to know that others felt as strongly as we did about The Crimson and the injustice, not just misrepresentation, it has afforded students of color at Harvard.

However, we are saddened and incensed at the response with which Counter and Reid's letter has been received by The Crimson as well as some members of the Harvard community. Counter's and Reid's letter, which is an attack on The Crimson (not Jews) for the way it has covered race-related issues irresponsibly, demonstrates how The Crimson has served to exacerbate tensions among racial and ethnic groups.

This has been most noticeable to the members of the Black Students' Association (BSA), who have observed that while there may be few specific examples where The Crimson has praised BSA, overall, the coverage we have received has been negative in tone. By selectively covering our most controversial events--i.e., the speeches by City University of New York Professor Leonard Jeffries, Nation of Islam Minister Conrad Muhammad, and Public Enenmy rapper Chuck D--Crimson writers have sought to question the integrity of our organization.

Crimson reporters, by seeking inflammatory comments, have instigated and exacerbated tensions among ethnic groups, especially between Blacks and Jews. In the past, The Crimson has featured the chair of Hillel conjecturing as to whether or not he thought BSA intended to offend Jews by inviting speakers perceived by some as being "anti-Semitic." One student leader even mentioned at a recent Freshman Black Table (FBT)-Crimson once had asked him to comment on BSA President Art Hall's leadership.

Additionally, The Crimson frequently has relied on secondary sources, manipulation of quotations, propaganda flyers, and hearsay to support its assertions regarding the BSA, its actions, and its leaders. This style of reporting in which The Crimson has puposely engaged itself certainly does reveal a disturbing trend toward the discrediting of the BSA, and creating and intensifying conflict between BSA, and other groups--a trend which has manifested itself in the way by which The Crimson has approached its coverage of the BSA. Not only is this irresponsible, but it also raises serious questions about The Crimson's journalistic ethics.

A prime example of The Crimson's poor journalistic ethics is in its staff editorial's Wednesday, April 15, 1992 response to Dr. Counter's critique. The fact that The Crimson took the entire page to respond to Dr. Counter--preventing the publication of any other students' views on any other subject--demonstrates how far The Crimson's staff will go in order to control the information it prints. Its response, which suggests that Counter's and Reid's letter "may be read as anti-Semitic by some," is nothing less than a character assassination aimed at Counter and Reid.

The label "anti-Semitic," which has been attributed to Counter and Reid, has been literally career-damaging to Black leaders in the past. The Crimson's careless invocation of the very loaded term, "anti-Semitic," not only serves to create the climate for Counter's dismissal (which The Crimson calls for) but also conveniently redirects the focus of his letter away from its original purpose--to critique The Crimson's coverage of racerelated issues on campus.

And so, the validity of the points raised in Counter's letter is never really addressed. Instead of refuting Counter's criticism, The Crimson cries out such responses as "Unbelievable," and "This is simply ridiculous."

The fact that The Crimson chose to open its response to Counter with a wise-crack by suggesting that "the four months the Foundation took to respond to The Crimson's four-part series on diversity" may be explained by the possibility that "perhaps the Harvard Foundation is woefully understaffed," is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which The Crimson approaches Counter and his work.

Fortunately, Counter approaches his job with much more seriousness, as he did take four months to construct a letter which has brought to the surface many of the concerns Black and other students have with regard to The Crimson's coverage of race-related issues.

The seriousness with which Counter approaches his job is not limited to his critiquing of The Crimson's misrepresentation of race-related issues. In fact, Counter has demonstrated his dedication to improving race relations at Harvard, and abroad, throughout the years.

In fact, last year, as a show of appreciation, every single House Master at Harvard presented Counter a plaque for the ten years of his life that he has dedicated to the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations.

The Harvard Foundation, under the leadership of Counter, has done an exemplary job of improving race relations, in light of the atmosphere at Harvard. The state of race relations at Harvard is not as indicative of the Foundation's work, as reflective of the state of race relations in American society.

Thus, it is unfair for The Crimson to place the sole burden of improving race relations on Counter and the Harvard Foundation, especially when The Crimson itself has dealt a serious blow to race relations by invoking the issues of anti-Semitism and by suggesting that Counter "should not be in charge of intercultural and race relations at Harvard."